Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, the description discloses cost (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact), the ten free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, and the requirement to bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and route. It also defines the output profile (Ed25519 signed receipt) and an important limitation: the report only matches words, figures, dates and named items and does not interpret meaning. That is materially useful operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded: purpose first, then report contents, then side-effect boundaries, pricing, and reference links. Most sentences earn their place for a paid, signed-receipt endpoint, though the pricing and URL/link tail could be trimmed without losing call-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so well by enumerating what the report marks and quoting, plus the signed receipt. Remaining gaps are minor: nothing is said about failure modes, malformed input handling, or how the ambiguous/present/missing verdicts are surfaced.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains label, format and the 256 KB policy body. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as when to force format=html versus letting detection default, so it does not exceed the baseline set by a fully documented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete verb and resources: submit a security/vulnerability disclosure policy or a security.txt file, and it spells out what the resulting report marks (contacts, timelines, scope, safe-harbor, PGP key). The purpose is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent wever_ai-disclosure-check sibling, so an agent choosing between the two disclosure tools gets no explicit routing cue.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is clearly scoped: the tool evaluates only the material in the call, with no page fetch, no account access, no merchant contact and no money movement, which tells an agent this is for submitting policy text rather than probing a live site. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.